by Chris McLaughlin
Gordon Brown has revealed that he did not support military action against Saddam Hussein because of the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction.
The threat of a WMD attack on British interests was the primary reason given to the House of Commons by Prime Minister Tony Blair for the invasion of Iraq and the reason many MPs backed it.
But in an exclusive interview with Tribune, Mr Brown said that it was not the threat of WMDs – later proven to be non-existent – but Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with international demands on disclosure that persuaded him that action was necessary.
The will raise fresh questions about the basis and legality of Britain’s involvement in the invasion in coalition with the United States. Mr Brown’s predecessor Tony Blair has never wavered in his view that the threat was considered real at the time.
But in his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Mr Blair also insisted that he would have backed the removal of Saddam even if there was no proven direct threat from WMDs.
Asked when he first knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq, Mr Brown told Tribune: “For me, the issue was all the time Iraq’s obligations to the international community.
If Saddam Hussein had signed up to international commitments to disclose everything about munitions to the international community, didn’t do it and then failed to respond properly, then the United Nations itself and collective action by the world community itself was put at risk, so for me that was the issue.”
On the relevance of the WMD threat to the House Commons vote, Mr Brown
said: “The evidence that was given to us was that there were weapons and that was the finding of a number of people but for me the reason for intervention was always the breach of international obligations by the Iraqi government.
“The issue was that they should disclose in full and co-operate with the international community, but I think everybody agrees that was never fully done.”
Asked why he requested giving evidence to the inquiry before the election, he said: “I don’t want people to think that there are unanswered questions. I’ve got answers to give that I am happy to give, I also want my opportunity to explain what I tried to do and how I managed the things I managed to do. I want to make sure that people know that everything I did was both thought-through and justified.’
And on whether he thinks the public will be satisfied with his answers: “I think I will be able to explain what we did, why we did it and what I did from 2007-2009 when I was in this job.”
